You are here: / / Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to suspend child support, the Second Department explained the criteria for early suspension of the child support obligation:

Generally, parents have a statutory duty to continually support their children until they reach 21 years of age (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]…). ” However, where the noncustodial parent establishes that his or her right of reasonable access to the child has been unjustifiably frustrated by the custodial parent, child support payments may be suspended'” … .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to suspend his obligation to pay child support. The plaintiff alleges continuing conduct on the part of the defendant which, if proven, would not “rise to the level of deliberate frustration’ or active interference’ with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights”… . Jones v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05879, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
HERE, IN SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A CITY HOSPITAL ALLEGING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBMIT THE MEDICAL RECORDS; THEREFORE THE PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THAT THE HOSPITAL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS DETERMINED BY THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ACTION, HERE CONVERSION AND FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVITS; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING (SECOND DEPT)
Record Did Not Demonstrate Defendant Understood His Miranda Rights—Statement Should Have Been Suppressed
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ANSWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAPERS, A THRESHOLD SHOWING INTERVENTION WAS WARRANTED WAS MADE AND THE DENIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW” (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Relationship of Prenuptial Agreement to Temporary Maintenance and Award of... Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably...